[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-24 08:58:46 UTC ---
The committee closed my DR as not a defect.  We could still downgrade this
error to a pedwarn, though.

http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_closed.html#1078

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|SUSPENDED                   |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-24 08:59:43 UTC ---
Actually, it's already a permerror, so -fpermissive will allow your code to
compile without changes.

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[gpiez at web dot de]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

--- Comment #18 from Gunther Piez <gpiez at web dot de> 2011-03-24 11:45:47 UTC ---
I have chosen the "recommended" way and added a cast, -fpermissive would allow
to many other dubious constructs to pass. Still I think c++ should get rid of
implicit integer conversions :-)

[Bug c++/44500] New: Bogus narrowing conversion error

[gpiez at web dot de]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 980 bytes --]

Compiling with g++ -std=c++0x, using gcc-4.5.0 :

struct A {
        char x;
};

template<char C> void f() {
        char y = 42;
        A a = { y+C };
}

int main() {
        f<1>();
}

yields an "error: narrowing conversion of ‘(((int)y) + 8)’ from ‘int’
to ‘char’ inside { }".
If I change the template parameter type from "char C" to "int C" the error
message persists, this seems wrong too, but I am not quite shre.

If I leave out the "y", everything is fine.


-- 
           Summary: Bogus narrowing conversion error
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: gpiez at web dot de
 GCC build triplet: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-11 10:57 -------
I wonder what the C++ standard said because we have the same issue in
Wconversion and Joseph rejected my patch arguing that the operation was done in
the larger type, so there was a narrowing conversion. I still believe that we
should not warn for T = T op T, when T is the same type all the time.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[gpiez at web dot de]

------- Comment #2 from gpiez at web dot de  2010-06-11 11:34 -------
Sorry for the unicode mess. The error message is 'error: narrowing conversion
of "(((int)y) + 1)" from "int" to "char" inside { }'.

The same error happens with a non templated function, but if I use two template
parameters, the error disappears, even if they are to large. So this is at
least very inconsistent.


no error:

struct A {                                                                      
<-->char x;                                                                     
};                                                                              

template<char C, char D>void f() {                                              
<-->A a = { C+D };                                                              
}                                                                               

int main() {                                                                    
<-->f<1,2>();                                                                   
}                                                                               




still no error:

struct A {                                                                      
<-->char x;                                                                     
};                                                                              

template<int C, int D>void f() {                                                
<-->A a = { C+D };                                                              
}                                                                               

int main() {                                                                    
<-->f<1,2>();                                                                   
}                                                                               


error:

struct A {                                                                      
<-->char x;                                                                     
};                                                                              

void f(char C, char D) {                                                        
<-->A a = { C+D };                                                              
}                                                                               

int main() {                                                                    
<-->f(1,2);                                                                     
}                                                                               



I believe I should not get an error, even if the template parameter type is
larger than a char, as long as the template parameter value fits in in char, so

template<int C> void f() {
        char y = 42;
        A a = { y+C };
}

should give no error, as long as C fits in a char. IMHO ;-)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-11 11:37 -------
'y' and 'C' are both promoted to int and 'y' is not a constant, so the
resulting value cannot be proven to fit in a char, so it's a narrowing
conversion.

If you make 'y' a const int then the value y+C is a constant and can be proven
not to narrow.

The fact that the optimiser knows y=42 is irrelevant, the language specifies
that y is not a constant, and whether the code is valid or not has to be
independent of optimisations such as value propagation.

I think gcc is correct here.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-11 11:42 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Sorry for the unicode mess. The error> I believe I should not get an error, even if the template parameter type is
> larger than a char, as long as the template parameter value fits in in char, so
> 
> template<int C> void f() {
>         char y = 42;
>         A a = { y+C };
> }
> 
> should give no error, as long as C fits in a char. IMHO ;-)

Just to be extra clear: C is a constant and the narrowing is *not* due to C,
consider:

struct A {
        char x;
};

template<int C> void f() {
        A a = { C };
}

int main() {
        f<1>();
}

Here C is an int, but it's a constant and it is provable that no narrowing
takes palce.

The problem in your example is 'y' not 'C' because the value of 'y' is not a
constant.




-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[gpiez at web dot de]

------- Comment #5 from gpiez at web dot de  2010-06-11 12:09 -------
So is it provable that for a "T op T" to be stored in T no narrowing takes
place?

If the answer for T == char is no and for T == int it is yes this is rather
fishy ;-)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-11 12:51 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> So is it provable that for a "T op T" to be stored in T no narrowing takes
> place?

Yes, if the values are constants.

> If the answer for T == char is no and for T == int it is yes this is rather
> fishy ;-)

That's not what I said. Look:

#include <climits>

struct A {
        char x;
};

template<char C, char D> void f() {
        A a = { C+D };
}

template<int I, int J> void g() {
        A a = { I+J };
}

int main() {
        f<1, 1>();                // OK
        g<1, 1>();                // OK

        f<CHAR_MAX, CHAR_MAX>();  // Error
}

f<1,1>() is ok, because C and D are constants. The type doesn't matter, the
result of C+D is known at compile time and fits in a char.

g<1,1>() is ok, because I and J are constants. The type doesn't matter, the
result of I+J is known at compile time and fits in a char.

f<CHAR_MAX, CHAR_MAX>() is not ok, because the result is known at compile time
and doesn't fit in a char.

See 8.5.4 [dcl.init.list]p6 in teh C++0x draft for the full rules


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-11 13:07 -------
He is referring to a testcase like:

template<typename T, T C> void f() {
  struct A {
    T x;
  };

  T y = 42;
  A a = { y + C };
}

int main() {
  f<int,1>();
  f<char,1>();
}

So, we warn for T == char but not for T == int. I know that the standard
considers differently narrowing and overflow but the difference is still
surprising.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-11 13:20 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> He is referring to a testcase like:
> 
> template<typename T, T C> void f() {
>   struct A {
>     T x;
>   };
> 
>   T y = 42;
>   A a = { y + C };
> }
> 
> int main() {
>   f<int,1>();
>   f<char,1>();
> }
> 
> So, we warn for T == char but not for T == int. I know that the standard

Note it's not a warning, it's an error, mandated by the standard.

> considers differently narrowing and overflow but the difference is still
> surprising.

In both cases, T+T has type int, so obviously it fits in an int.  It doesn't
necessarily fit in an char, so is an error unless the values are constants and
the actual value can fit in a char.

This is mandated by the standard and the diagnostic is IMHO clear. 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[gpiez at web dot de]

------- Comment #9 from gpiez at web dot de  2010-06-11 13:27 -------
I understand now after the implicit promotion to int of a non constant value
the result of the narrowing operation can't be guaranteed to fit in the
original type. But I still think it shouldn't give an error, and if the
standard says so, I think it is flawed in this regard ;-)

Consider

g<INT_MAX, INT_MAX>();  // Warning, but no Error

despite it can be proven that the value will not fit and this is very likely an
error. Opposing to

char c,d;
A a = { c+d };

which is very likely not an error and would only require a mild warning. IMHO.

Manuel, in your testcase, you do not only warn, you error out if compiled with
-std=c++0x.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-11 13:33 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> 
> In both cases, T+T has type int, 

We know that, but I don't think most C/C++ programmers know about integer
promotion rules. We just disagree here. But since this is mandated by the
standard, you are right.

> so obviously it fits in an int.  It doesn't

For a strict-standard definition of "fits", because it may overflow and a
layman wouldn't say that it "fits" in that case.

> This is mandated by the standard and the diagnostic is IMHO clear. 

I am not arguing against that (although, I think it is unfortunate). I would
prefer a bit longer message:

error: C++0x does not allow narrowing conversion of "(((int)y) + 1)" from "int"
to "char" inside { }

(BTW, I think those braces should be within quotes).

But since I guess I am in the minority here, we'll have to close this as
INVALID. 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-11 14:56 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> I understand now after the implicit promotion to int of a non constant value
> the result of the narrowing operation can't be guaranteed to fit in the
> original type. But I still think it shouldn't give an error, and if the
> standard says so, I think it is flawed in this regard ;-)
> 
> Consider
> 
> g<INT_MAX, INT_MAX>();  // Warning, but no Error

The integer overflow means this is undefined behaviour. But it is not a
narrowing conversion according to the rules of 8.5.4/6


> despite it can be proven that the value will not fit and this is very likely an
> error. Opposing to
> 
> char c,d;
> A a = { c+d };
> 
> which is very likely not an error and would only require a mild warning. IMHO.

use A a = { char(c+d) } if you want the result to be a char not an int, then
there is no narrowing conversion, because a narrowing conversion is an impliit
conversion.


(In reply to comment #10)iagnostic is IMHO clear. 
> prefer a bit longer message:
> 
> error: C++0x does not allow narrowing conversion of "(((int)y) + 1)" from "int"
> to "char" inside { }

I prefer the shorter message. If the compiler tells you there is an error it
doesn't normally tell you the standard says so. If you compile with -std=c++0x
then obviously that's the standard in question.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[gpiez at web dot de]

------- Comment #12 from gpiez at web dot de  2010-06-12 08:46 -------
I am closing this, as it isn't a gcc bug, as it behaves according to the
standard.

The bug is in the standard, as it mandates

f<1,1>                  // ok
f<CHAR_MAX, CHAR_MAX>() // error
g<INT_MAX, INT_MAX>()   // no error, but undefined behaviuour

f(char, char)           // error
g(int, int)             // ok

which is inconsistent and surprising. C++0x should really have got rid of the
implicit integer promotion. Wasn't the intent of the implicit promotion to be
able to write 

char a,b,c,d;
a = b*c/d;

and get a correct result even if b*c > CHAR_MAX? I believe nobody does write
code like this anymore, and even if, you could simply say "undefined behaviour"
;-) It doesn't work for ints anyway.

Instead I have now an implicit integer promotion which forces me to use an
explicit cast in compound initializers, where narrowing conversion isn't
allowed, while in a simple assignment of course it is allowed (or else a hell
would break loose... ). Why not make -Wconversion an error, at least this would
be consistent ;-)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[gpiez at web dot de]

------- Comment #13 from gpiez at web dot de  2010-06-12 08:47 -------
...


-- 

gpiez at web dot de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-13 17:14 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> Why not make -Wconversion an error, at least this would
> be consistent ;-)

You can use -Werror=conversion 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[jason at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2010-07-09 21:29:47
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[jason at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-09 21:29 -------
I agree that this is a bug, but it's a bug in C++0x, not with GCC, and
unfortunately it came up too late for me to include it as a national body
comment.  I have submitted it as a defect report.


-- 

jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500

[Bug c++/44500] [C++0x] Bogus narrowing conversion error

[jason at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |SUSPENDED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500